tv Conservatism Debate at University of Notre Dame CSPAN October 10, 2019 5:03pm-6:05pm EDT
people requested tickets. it will be totally sold out. i don't know who's going but it will be totally sold out. if you're going to be there i'm going to miss you but they have a line now that's many blocks long. amazing. we have the line right now in minnesota that as many blocks long. i think i can win minnesota, yale. omar is helping us win in minnesota and many other places. i will see you in minnesota. i will see you in minnesota.
>> leave tap city says this dystopian future. some of you may have recently streamed on netflix a movie called the gate from new york where manhattan was going to be a penal colony. that's how bad things were getting. they were more than 2000 people murdered in two -- new york city , more than 2000 the same that time that was happening with war and courts have obliterated the proper reading of the religion clauses of the first amendment. he amendment was strong in some areas under siege and other areas. we are talking about a situation that was very serious. how did we respond to the many challenges? one of the things that happened was the crime rate. from civic leaders to rudy
giuliani. his finest battle 9/11 or in which he is a local leader actually helps new york's crime rate so much that a chop the national crime rate. so you look at these challenges and american history and what you begin to see is when you have these massive challenges and increased in liberty and the energy of local governments to make decisions and an increase in the energy and vitality of local governments the increase in the energy and vitality of our churches, the response of the american people who respond with hope rather than panic. panic is its own enemy here. it leads to terrible decision-making. itre leads to bad decisions all the time and it leads to moral compromise. one of the things that i've seen american christians in particular we are very concerned about a culture that lies too much. we are very concerned about
culture that discards marriage vows. we are concerned about a culture that embraces. we are very concerned about drag. if you follow twitter half of twitter sometimes on the conservative side it seems. what do we do? we are concerned about lies, adultery and drag. return to a guy who lied and created serial assaults with stars and appeared in movies and even a video of drag where he buried his face into rudy giuliani's bosom. actually that happened. look it up. one of the things we have is an issue where as i said from the beginning america depends on two things. depends on the government that respects and protects liberty. depends on a citizenry that is oriented towards virtue. a political party or a political system that undermines one of those even ostensibly for the
sake of the other is dangerous. >> since david mentioned new york city i happen to observe the city and politics as conditions at "the new york post" at the paper founded by my favorite founder alexander hamilton. look, i agree with david the things were very bad in new york in the 1970s and 80s and edging into the early 90s. though the turnaround of the commissioner and mayor giuliani and mayor lou bergen many ways consolidated those gains but i would say the sense of crisis is building upis and so for example although major crimes in new york aren't up yet as much pressure as the nypd continues to do its best to deal with policing lifestyle crimes are
back in terms of anywhere you go someone is high or aggressive on the subway or the streets. the number of homeless on the streets are often addicted to opioids. these types of crises and you see parallels in rural communitiess. new york and manhattan is very different from tennessee. they require a politics of order and protection. often the consensus conservatism that i've been critiquing is only in the liberation. it's only in the autonomy period so for example right now we can get into a substandard debate with whether marijuana should be legalized but it seems to me more or less everyone is at peace with those on the left and right so the disagreement is no longer should we demolish one last barrier standing? the right will say if we are
going to legalize marijuana we had better let the market distribute the proceeds whereas the left will say thepr war on drugs hurts communities in the past so we should give those communities licensing so they can benefit more from legalization. neither party that we know -- create psychotic episode sometime since especially young men and women's minds there boggled all the time. that sort have been taken off the table or the homeless crisis in new york. what people don't understand it's primarily a mental health crisish . it'sci because of the politics f autonomy that arose in the 1950s and 60s because state mental health institutions used to be, some of them were abusive but both left and right began to open up the mental health institutions in the name of autonomy for the mentally ill.
we face hard their ears to overcome this. we have got rid of hospital beds in both the left and the right have agreed for different reasons. on the right it a fiscal restraint and we spend less in the committee programs and that includes the programs that are cheaper and the left it's about autonomy of the individual. we can't help people, they have got to be committed. you see how these two movements of left and right on these urban issues go back to the politics of autonomy and do we have room in our politics now for politics of consolidation or national consolidation a policy of order and cohesion. it seems like we do. we have it from present company raises questions about unrestrained free trade when he raises questions about
migration andass he recognizes some of these crises begin as professor kessler said yes he is vulgar but in the sames way he recognizes they nation wants protection in order. [applause] >> i would say to david's point it's true. in many ways we are still living in the 60s s. we still talk about the 60s as though it were still here and we are still coming to grips with decade.zing politically we were much more united in the 60s and the 70s despite the number of awnings and fights and other things you can use, lbj won the election in 1964 with more than
60% of the vote. richard nixon won re-election in 1972 with even more of the vote. this was not an era where as you say the negative polarization was as deep as it is now and as you also say donald trump didn't create that negative polarization. he is in no way trying to deal with it but as sometimes happens in politics you can't deal with it by denying it. may have to deal deal with that by confronting it and trying to new majority which would be as different kind of concerted majority along the lines that they are calling for. >> i want to turn my attention, we need to advance a moral vision of the good and open this is state power. and i argued anticipate david's response.
given we are on the moment of moral crisis why wouldn't the reaction be to a moral crisis we need to reduce state power cracks if we are in crisis how is the state going to advance a moral vision that is healthy? >> icas weave a lot of our challenges i state power. i will take an example where it david and i clearly disagree. as i said i'm raising young children right now and i'm deeply worried about their addiction. this is something a lot of parents have on their minds. as i said my son again statistically is likely to encounter hard-core pornography before he hitsel puberty. now i'm going to do my best to prevent that but the civilization we have built inn the name of autonomy has made
that very difficult. as a christian we have to see that some people fall on but we shouldn't have built a garden full of thistles and expect people to maintain integrity. senator josh hawley recently introduced some legislation to try to curb that with some regulatoryh measures. so for example to reduce the kindnd of infinite refresh to gt from social media. even now i found myself as my colleagues were talking what are people saying on twitter about this? i'm guilty of it as much as anyone. making sure that videos don't start right away. i don't know of holly's measures are the way to do it really should study them but i think he's trying to say here is a
real crisis and we have met for example addiction to cigarettes with government action. we met addiction to alcohol as best we could with government action not that it stopped me from smoking. but the point is we should try to explore it where's the consensus right what it will do is say no, no that's republicans stayed as them. we can't go there. if the company wants to make its product attractive so be it. that's how we create a civilization like i said a garden of thorns and thistles and we wonder why we have 50% of marriages fail. people are distracted including by per dr. fee. people are just lonely and so forth. government has a role to play to protect us. always has. >> among other things it sends a scroll for you scroll up on
instagram. stops you from having a snap chat streak. it prevents youtube, it would prevent youtube from starting another video immediately as if we haven't been dealing with the ultimate autoplay device which is the actual television you have. i'm wondering what is going to do about mynd son's time on fortnite. i wonder about discord and a real issue amongst young people these days. there is no substitute at the end of the day for human beings exercising responsibility and the moment we begin to look at the government and we say i'm having trouble with my son onme social media senator holly would you have got is a moment where we are beginning to fail seriously as a people and we have a trackco record in this country but i'm not going to say that every government is bad. there hasrv been good government
interventions. i'm going to say we should have a healthywe skepticism about thr wisdom. or just reminded of this yesterday but the wisdom of ronald reagan saying nine of the worst english language or from the government and i'm here to help. we have a ban on vaping come on flavored vaping. okay i don't like vaping but also on the basis there's as cultural panic right now is a result of o people who have tragically died because they purchased illegally. i don't know the lingo certain on this but there lots of people who have been weaning themselves off of cigarettes through these means. now were we going to kill more people by banning a method in which they've been weaning themselves off as that most dangerous product because we just had a moral panic about something that isn't truly targeted by this band? that's how the governments often tends to work. we have had a war on poverty in
this country where some of the most well-meaning people in the world have been sending trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars long-term poverty. often they have exacerbated. we have had well-meaning people who would spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reform and education system that still fail so thoroughly one of the greatest benefits to the conservative movement over the last 20 to 30 years is liberating now up to 5 million kids a year starting from a whopping zero. the almost 5 million kids a year from the public school monopoly is failing so badly. we are talking about a system where i hear order matters whose order? what policy? it they are going to enhance the power of the state it deprives me of autonomy who's going to be at the leverage of power josh hawley's internet censorship
commission after president trump's gone? is it going to be president elizabeth warren running the censorship commission? it we increase the level of public order so we can get rid of groups we don't like from public bases i guarantee you we will have thousands and thousands that we dod like ban from public spaces. all of these things have consequences exercised by people on the other side. one of things you should think about when youth think about policy how will this play of my political opponent has this power? one of the first things you should think about. another thing i want to talk about you talk about marijuana. it is important for us to consider. we have a problem, huge problem with family formation in the ranks of poor and working-class americans. the lack of marriageable men in
part due to mass incarceration. we have to think really really hard about how we can deal with mass incarceration of the crime rate is less than half of what it was in the murder rate. the rate of violent crime is plummeting. we are living in a futurere that in 1990 we were wildly optimistic. we had her for about a gas on nonviolent crimes. this is part of the project of the conservative movement to look at what state power has done to ameliorate state power not to trust with more power and hope you justen win again and again and again. that is a recipe for continued and magnified negative polarization because i guarantee you our version of the public order, the public order that small unorthodox quest -- christians is not the same of the public order. tens of millions ofil americans and we enhance p the power to impose that from the top i
promise you you will not like it >> i would say that may i comment that will relax the focust slightly on these issues. there has been what will mark kendall used to call a liberal revolution in american public life and public policy that really began in the late 1950s but of course it accelerated in the 1960s and continues in many ways to accelerate ever since. one aspect of that revolution was a revolution in the courts. pornographer used to be illegal. i mean it was only in the 1960s that local laws began to fall before thehe supreme court and other federal courts new understanding of free speech.
there -- the revolution was not by legislatures that allowed pornography and obscenity is to run awry. that was a revolution in the courts from the top down. why do we try to reverse that revolution? why not return to a more policy where the questions of obscenity and pornography would be regulated or less at the local level or the state level? by ordinary citizens. it seems to me one of the things conservatism ought to be thinking about going forward is undoingld much of the damage doe by hyperactive liberalism in the last 50 years. that is impossible to do it if our own conservative judges
don't accept what has happened as the reversible and now the law of the land would some of them are attempting to do though of them.est >> do you want to respond to that last point? >> we areth looking at the doctrine. the actual words of the amendment protects the freedom of speech. the freedom of speech meant something. it wasn't just anything that anyone wanted to say. for a example libel was never protected. consumer fraud never protected. now were not gurfein never protected. true threats never protected actual incitement to violence. these have not conclusively been in the speech of joran originalists. there was a huge battle for a long time about the supreme court that there is a broad understanding that obscenity was not protected and there's a big
battle at the supreme court whether it resulted in this famous you know what when you see it. that's when you know judges have run amok when essentially the standard is i know it's unlawful when i k see that is unlawful ad there's no governing principle but there was a definition that i believe was probably the best definition that would be a form of expression with no underlying artistic literary cultural merit specifically.ed i do not think you and i do not think any ritual understanding of the constitution wouldsu say that is an incorrect understanding constituting the understanding that state and local government even the federal government, that they couldn't deal with that kind of expression. the problem that you have i am totally on board with the notion
that the category of obscenity should not be under the original understanding of the constitution could in fact i would disagree a little bit that the problem of pornography has been exacerbated entirely by judges. judges have allowed municipalities chase shops out of the core areas of town. they are heavily frequented by tourists and children. times square is totally different than it usedt. to be n downtown asheville that used to be the worst, the belt buckle of the bible belt and now that's where the southern baptist convention is. the courts have allowed their to be deregulation that chased an lot of them off of the public square.
we have a m massive technical challenge. this is a matter of technical challenge and how you practically deal with it. >> one of my students this week after preparing for conversation said to me two things. she was saying why she was attracted to him. i'd like that is willing to fight power with power. i like that he's willing to combat the sexual revolution. this is power to combat the sexual revolution and youou realize that corporations are at greater liberty than the states. >> no, okay. no corp. is going to come at you saying that. no corporation is going to come at you with guns. right now facebook is a very powerful corporation. can open this, open the phone
delete the app and get facebook out of my life. they are powerful absolutely. we have long hadow powerful institutions in the united states. none of them rival the power of the state to regulate your life. what you going to do? he knows if the court blesses it he can crush any one of these corporations of power of the state. the state has far more empirical power period. as a symbol of our movement that we begin to pare back in the areas of the power of the state. we can actually worry about facebook. we are really defining it, we rreally are.
he earlier said the mario lopez has had to correct itself in drew brees had to correct itself. they did not. if you say to drew brees you don't apologize the power of the state would save mario if you don't apologize on transgender issues.. that's the power of the state. what we have done is we have said this. we have said i believe this is absolutely intolerable that i risk anything in expression of my duty. i will tell you a story after we finish the debate of the new catholic university. they toldd me not to debate u.s. when i finished thest debate a young man came up to me and he said you have no idea how hard it is to be conservative on campus. where are you a conservative? at yale.
right now i know he's one of the most power for privileged people in the history of the planet. he feels deeply oppressed and i said what's happening to me. when i wear my maga hat people will scream. i'm waiting and, and, come on. this is the world that we are living increasingly. i call it the courage of political appointment now have someone come up to me and said look one of the things you need to do is to speak with grace truth and conviction. a lot of people did that and change this country. i had a guy come up to me afterwards and there such a sense of crisis and hysteria in this country it's unbelievable. he said i can't do that. you mean they will take you in the middle of the night didn't dump your body in a ditch? we have to have a sense of
proportion here guys. if we are talking about the most important values in our life, the most important values of our life i'm not going to let the fact that i've changed on twitter or shamed on social media deter me from saying this and here's what happens. everyone is afraid and then it creates a mass sense that i cannot say anything to the reality is you can and you should. i don't like the dreww brees got drafted. gerrer breese failed. drew brees failed. we have reciprocal responsibility. the liberal left has a responsibility not to be the liberal wrath left in the great is right has a responsibility to be the courageous right.
>> i want to address the courage point and the state point. i think we can be frank about this and say if that's the case that a lot of people feel compelled to shut up and not share gospel truth in the catholic church for example is because the mode of censorship that lurks through our private lives is effective. that's the bottom line is working in the sense that you can compel ordinary people to be courageous. i work at a large media company. i cann go on tucker show and be critical of it and tucker and i said to each other you and i are
one of very few people who can do that. we know cases of all people who because they speak out fail a job prospects in this country that are negative. he can say too be courageous but as christian leaders we have to think the way it augustine did which is the commentary on matthew he said when the flock is under threat the bishop is to drive us right away so the bishop is to martyr himself but we shouldn't expect ordinary christians to become a martyr. that never been a standard for martyrdom. we should create instead conditions in which they feel safe to share the gospel with others in right now we are confronting the power of capital capitol. if it's effective and people are showing up there's a deep strand of conforming.
christian leaders have the privilege to speak outul and not get into trouble we should think likeke augustus. he tried toe drop the threat awy from the flock and not leave them vulnerable. the standard has never been for dairy people to seek out modernism unless they have fully have to. >> we are defining these in using words like unprecedented and martyrdom. these are words with media -- meaning and money using words like martyrdom what we actually mean off than he is social sanction or peer pressure. possibly a loss of a job. when i talked to professor kesler one of the tactics the radical liberal left would use at harvard law school when you spoke to us that really tick them off and some of them would start to call the place you're about to work for and tell them
you were racist and a homeless voted you have no business workingg there. the harvard federalist society is busting at the seams. they would take pictures of the federalist society and this is before cutting and pasting. they would take a picture from a federalist society member-based essays on and put oliver campus. one of the things that i realized was i don't even want to call it courage. idoni want to call it courage. courage is when people i'm defining courage myself and people risk their lives for value. we have got tonige have a sensef bravery that says i won't a silent. this does mean incurring somee risk and one of the things in his point he talks about the elevation of this crisis is for immunity. i've never seen something you
didn't include bravery. when we arett participating in e battle for the soulless nation each one of us as a participant. we cannot delegate that duty so each one of those is under a moral obligation to be brave. >> he do want toe double down on crisis. the last time i said we should try to forestall the colosseum like and what a crazy thing to say. who built the colosseum and why does it look like? the modern technocratic society the colosseum need not look like a colosseum with lions. again to have it debacle or a christian frame maybe we don't have a colosseum right now but every day there's a rescaling of holy innocents on that
large-scale. that's a real crisis and we should be able to name things like that. >> david knows this as well on campuses the problem is not just be sold byuld courage although there are many aspects of it which could be solved by courage but there are also deprivations of due process of law in sexual assault proceedings and so forth encouraged by the obama administration and the infamous dear colleague letter. that policy has now at least begun to be reversed. the courage although always necessary is insufficient to solve that problem. >> the class of liberalism began with a new title ix policy. very quickly. i believe title ix policies title ix inspired policies have been ruled unconstitutional or unlawful under common law concepts by judges from every
single modern president ever appointed by any single modern presence of the message of classic liberalism absolutely nuked this and are still nuking this incredibly illiberal notion on the right. >> introduce yourself please. >> thank you all of you very much. my name is patrick and i'm a sophomore political science student. mike question is there's a classical distinction between public and private liberalism with the idea that public policy should be justified on the basis they can appeal to people across different in. the highest good especially the interpretive history of the founders seem bound up with a christian. the good and intrinsic disorder and that sort of thing. i'm curious if you think there
is another version of this argument of more proper ordering in the public sphere that stays within the bounds of public reason asub opposed to falling into religious base? >> sure. it's one that the founders although they didn't always use theal term would use the languae of classical natural law. they never the less word even. it's a language that says we can know the good and we can know it by exercising our reason and in some way it's written into our hearts in thehe form of the conscience. with revelation it becomes the added assurance that we know thou shalt not kill and so forth. we know that and we can reason about it. i think that's a framing that more classically speaks toe what the founders would have appreciated.
it may require some recognition of classical theism. may require some recognition of classical theism which appeal to a group of mostly men who when you stop talking about the god of nature the bettering of her nature to feca back to lincoln. that detailed to go back to that kind of language. to say that the good is noble -- knowable by reason. is their right to see distinction between -- david deal or at accept moral pluralism and it's a given is not going to go away and sohrab is that a fundamental difference between the two of you? i willwi say pluralism and manns
of sexuality if you believe there is a moral law we should strive because of the good and noble. >> i would say i think the fundable moral differences are intrinsic of the nature of this nation and the nature of those often change. pluralism is a fact of life in the foundation of thisfo countr. so what is it that divides us. we never been religious and an ethnically homogenous country like say most of the countries of europe were. if i spend multiethnic multistate and we are going to be multiethnic alt-a faith as long as this country lives and we will be increasingly
multiethnic and the trend is now the we'll be increasingly multifaith. any given flashpoint within pluralism may change but the fact that her wisdom is a permanent part of america and if we take any action to impair the ability of us to live together in a pluralistic environment it's going to harm this country. for all the differences you just mentioned americans whatever their faith or lack thereof have the same morality. that's not sure anymore. there's a different sort ofre pluralism. i see sohrab resisting that and i may be putting words in your mouth is but criticizing you for accepting if i want to push on this because there's a real disagreement here. >> i'm in the middle. i think the way the founders
would have put it and would recognize the consensus on morality that makes it possible with diversity in religion and religiousl toleration. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and their theological doctrine will differ but as long as they can agree on how we regard our fellow citizens as human beings withh rights which no religious teaching authorizes us to violate those rights or to deprive them of those rights and their right to practice our religion this is one of phil's specialties and he knowsws more about this than i do but all of that depended upon the doctrine that we share the same rights.
our religious freedom is an aspect of the morality we all agree on. in other words the basis of pluralism is consensus a certain kind of moral consensus. if you don't have the consensus that's a problem for pluralism and peace even, peace in society. that is where sohrab's criticism hits whether or not the common morality is being degraded. >> i think we can smooth over some of these religious differences. some of these differences were that i can even live around the people. maybe i'm being expelled. maybe i find the atmosphere in the community so intolerable i can even live here. and this mirrors if you look at christian europe running up to
the american founding you have a lot of people in christian europe who would believe things now is a common morality that we would go yeah. there are large areas of agreement. if you drive down franklin road in nashville you'll pass a beautiful catholic church. you'll pass and not so great looking assembly of god church. you'll pass and alloo of them ae based on the culture. a beautiful presbyterian church but not as beautiful as the catholic church. you just go down the line and the biggest conflict you have so many groups now is can you get out of church fast enough to beat the rush? and rewind 300 years and the church bulletin wouldan say at a calvinist church papist burning at noon. this is the level of
disagreement and vicious anger that existed between these common strands within orthodox christianity that we have almost totally a forgotten. we have almost totally forgotten it. we cannot have a commitment of pluralism without some element of common culture. including ones which could be of nobody is committed to pluralism you can't have the commitment to pluralism. i'm not saying we are -- i'm not saying there's a situation where we can live with a duel agreement that i'm saying weio e going to live in a permanent condition in this notion where we v have very substantial disagreement and we have to figure out how to do it and the founders showed us the way. >> one quick one i wanted to
make is the best hope is in the founders to the extent that they recognize that true religion maybe call it classic theism is part of the common good and therefore not only protection but a special kind of encouragement that i want to call it the doctrine of religious liberty plus. as adam said insurers and at various points said is a fortune -- sort of virtue and the common good and the tempo of power has some responsibility to recognize it and we should resist about religious neutrality. i know that is the litigation strategy that brought us safety for example for christians in the public space but in the long-term the doctrine of religious neutrality in a way
relative -- relegate religion to kind of a bias. okay you believe in one god is the creator and in worth -- europe you worship malan. the government of the united states imposing a moral relativism that is dangerous and also chips away at the fundamentals of our founding? our founding is based on this idea a specific vision of god and of god has no purchase that is no more special bands member or scientology then we have undermined our constitution. >> these issues go far back in the country's history. the first republican national party platform in the twin
relics of our prism slavery and polygamy. the early mormon church where there could be accepted as part of a pluralistic world of american religion it faced a stumbling block in the practice and to some extent they doctrine of polygamy in the early church. there was an actual supreme court decision that outlawed polygamy in the united states. the mormon church responded by forbidding polygamy as well and evolve happily to the point where it's one ofha the fastest growing religions in the country and it essentially endorses the same morality as all the other religions. if you do have religion that endorse polygamy worse things could be imagined, child sacrifice or whatever you
couldn't have religious pluralism. you'd have religious warfare eventually. >> let me bring up the name very quickly. some of you may not know who this guy is. he says the odious congressman and the senator from maine who was anti-catholic to the core. his vision of c ordering the society as a public good is he propose an amendment to the united states constitution that prohibited any funding for what was called sectarian school. in our modern went to rehearse the terry and we think the nomination like a christian school. back then it had a very specific meaning. in the years before the first amendment was brought to an couple of states the order of the entire good meantan the pubc schools could be protestant
schools where they rent -- read from the king james bible and read hymns beauprez dnssec. schools were parochial schools. public schools were going to be elevated in the perot s can -- parochial sectarian schools like catholics would be excluded. 37 states passed those amendments. 37 states ordering the society. it was odious anti-catholic figure 3. we are still fighting about that now. there's a case before the united states supreme court espinoza trying to finally drive a wooden stake through the vampiric heart of the anti-catholic bigotry in this country. that is what i'm worried about. james blaine, remember him. remember when state power is granted to depart from a thumb on the scales decisively on the
side of one state or another, james lane. >> we will try to get in as many questions as we can. >> hello. my name is dan gilmer. i'm a sophomore going to notre dame and i'm from san antonio texas. mr. france i was inspired so i have a question for you. you mentioned the idea that we are in a challenge not a crisis. you stated the fact that we were facing carter challenges in the 80s and 90s. i agree that we are in a better material position. think right now the main crisis is a crisis of international character. my question is do you think our society in truth religious and virtue or objective truth will create good leaders to face challenges in thetr future. in other words has it been a government pushing sexual
revolution as the degradation of the virtue or pushing to exercise their liberty? >> it's been both. part of the moral battle in the united states of america is the battle between people of very different competing moral visions in the marketplace of ideas often on one side and onto often at theirnm side in assist from government. they are ideas and values that i find repugnant. this is a constant fight, a constant fight. it will never stop. you will always have the battle between the truth and lies. you willu have a battle between justice and injustice. that's always going to exist in the nature of that will change. how extreme it is in any given moment will change in whether you are on top politically or on the bottom politically will
change. when the adjusting things about crisis we have seen are ntmerging in the flight 93 essay is both sides think they are losing badly right now. i talked to a conservative group and i say that. are you insane? the left wins everywhere. by 2014 the democratic party the instrument of our political power and culture as a country within a 100 year low. a 100 year low. can you manage to imagine how panicked we'd feel if republicans were at a 100 year low right now? that's a row problem. we have is two sidesou engaged n a battle of ideas. i'll want us to win but i also don't want to destroy the superstructure or in. the superstructure of thet country for the stake of a short sighted belief that political
power while make us win. if we are concerned about state power through should be and has history teaches us we should be we should be the most suspicious of granting the state moree powr over our moral lives. our history in the last 50 years is not good for that. >> look i think the reason both sides may feel they are both losing his bottom line the substandard conditions that we have our deserving both. neither of them are the common goodis. politics and the way has been depoliticized and we talked about that, by judges and others the crisis of polarization so i don't see how that in some ways is not in evidence for my side of the argument of the sense. if those sites you like the regime is failing them maybe
conservatives need to rethink what her goal is that if her goal is to maintain procedure or to present the vision of the good and bring more people to our side rather than both sides. sampley of about 10 more minutes we will try to get in as many questions as possible. >> i'm paid cardwell a first year law student at the mckinney school of law in minneapolis. my question, curious how all of your faith influence the way you interact in the political sphere and how you treat people. maybe if you didn't hold that belief you think your method would still be consistent with. [inaudible] >> faith. this will be faster and the reasons i have confidence in the marketplace ideas the reason we have confidence in and we can
order society to a higher and better goods through the power of her voice. i've seen with myo own eyes the empowering view of the gospel and the lives of human beings who have absolute no hope and have nowhere to go. i've seen a power be far more transformative from the inside out. more than any other power of scene, government, cultural. the power of the gospel is the most powerful force on earth and the idea that we would retreat on key liberties that allow us to share the most powerful force on earth is one of the more self-destructive and harmful ideas that we could put forth in the public square. >> i was raised baptist and remain temperamentally at apt is at least. and so this is a religion deeply
suspicious of state power and i think as the reading of christianity it is a very helpful reminder. this seems that would unite david and sohrab here if there isn't a reasonablea morality tht all religions canned recently agree on than we are in a very deep and the word to use would be i think crisis in american life and american politics. i think the problem in america is really aboutbo reason more tn it is about revelation. it's about whether we can know about the moral good to require everyone in different ways in different situations to live up to it. i think that is why in an age
mowhen post-modernism has swept the university, post modernism followed by the notion that reason can't tell us anything about what is a good and bad right and wrong. the kind of politics where one bad notion has been widely disseminate out of the universities into the ruling class in american politics and even beyond the ruling class as the rule as it were is a politics of it are emotional vitriolic irrationality. there are signs that we are heading in that direction. >> i converted to catholicism in december of 2016 and i would say it had a profound effect on how i looked at the world. first of all i have said that as a political actor and i will say it again might primary
commitment which is perfectly reasonable in any context is liberty of the church. in that sense i'm grateful for what david is done for the church in the courtroom but it's also the catholics in putting its vast rich social teachings has made me re-see some aspects of american conservatism could i not saying what the health care for example problem isge that i know longer can say it is what it is in our system is very expensive and x number people don't have insurance. my case this has happened to me and began as a roman catholic i try to think what would it be like if it happened to someone else? my son got the human medine noma virus. it can be very deadly. ofre requires a night hospitalization. pick up the billl and one night
of hospitalization just monitoring him with $20,000 of which even though i work for a large corporation with the platinum insurance program i was responsible for 3700 at that. my wife and i can handle that. i'll give an extra top -- talk somewhere write an article that i can imagine what that's like for working-class americans and poor americans. .. has to be a degree of protection for people. there is far too much uncertainty in american document uncertainty in american live and that's why i think a lot of americans don't take great risks. don't make the right sacrifices that they should like family formation and having children clause of this a defense of uncertainty. that's how i conduct myself and the public. conversion it's not maybe any less combative. it is brought me to sacraments
of things. confessions. [laughter] [applause] screaming us question. i'm a junior in philosophy and economics. thank you speakers for coming. my question is. after world war ii, germany banned nazi party. there is an evil ideology that lived a prosperous nation to its destruction. i'm frompr minnesota. for naval ideology has led a prospering country to its demise. is it all prudent, for the state to ban the ideas from the public square. scenic the american state? no. is that short enough made it through. we don't have the same history
or culture as other nations. and we have to respond accordingly. tunic david has rightly called for a total war on the outright. i am with him on that. the notion of white americans fearing that they'll be replac replaced. obviously, we have a first amendment. if it has any kind of violent extremist component, that is where we can fight. it has any incitement, as we can fight. i would say, i don't bring the libraries and again. but i have to ask. okay let's stay out of this one. neverer mind. on our regime, we can't do that. in germany, different conditions that instability, but we can
wage ideological warfare and we have. against communism ande against fascism and other things that are out there. >> i wouldn't, defiance upon circumstances. after the civil war, people who had bought on behalf of the confederacy were required to take those oath of loyalty. to the constitution and to the union before their political rights were restored. that was very exceptional circumstances and a very exceptional remedy but i think it is possible even in the united states for such remedies to be necessary yes. >> [applause]
>> cspan2 camping 2020 coverage continues as president trump houses keep america great valley in minneapolis, minnesota. like tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on cspan2 watch anytime on cspan.org and listen wherever you know using the freight cspan2 radio app. >> the head of blue cross blue shield says millennials are the sickest generation the insurance company is study. president annie celia scott told members of the detroit economic club that illness among millennials is due mainly to mental health issues. he also talked about the future of healthcare. prescription doug cross and innovation.